patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

My research has shown that the Pentagon is a can of worms

What is that supposed to mean?

Squatting in East CoCo says

I continue to "debate" Bigsby for two reasons:

1. I hope I can open his eyes to see the evidence of a CD of WTC7. His denial makes it easy to present evidence that he does not and cannot rebut.

2. It helps others see the truth.

The truth is you just keep posting the same things and avoid addressing the issues raised about what you post. I hope that simple fact does help people see the truth.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

My research has shown that the Pentagon is a can of worms

What is that supposed to mean?

The video evidence has been confiscated and the Pentagon is so secure that there is very little access to any physical evidence.

Why don't you just state what you think happened at the Pentagon and why?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Decide what you think happened and then shape your evidence the best you can to match that. Very academic I don't think.

That is what NIST did.

No, it didn't, and as a professor, you should be aware of that.

Zlxr says

The biggest evidence is sitting right in front of our eyes,

Self cleaning ovens heat up to about 900 degrees F on the cleaning cycle and the stoves don't melt. Yet everything left inside that can burn is basically turned to ash.

So what kind of a fire would damage the steel in a steel building and leave all that paper around. It should have burned up way before the steel got hot enough to even bend.

Must try harder.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I cant seem to recall you posting ANY evidence for your conjectures. I may be mistaken. Can you repost your rebuttal evidence to the following four points:

a. There was trace evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.

b. There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

c. The official story has WTC7 falling in a manner which defied physics.

d. The official report neglected or denied evidence.

My conjectures? I'm not the one making the outlandish claims. You are.
a. Other people addressed that multiple times.
b. I have addressed that multiple times - buildings on fire can have minor explosions. How does that equate to a CD? Show proof of a CD. You haven't because you can't.
c. According to you and your conspiracy websites. Not according to other reports. Either way, defying the laws of physics is quite some achievement. Perhaps you should phone up CNN, Fox, BBC, Al-Jazeera etc. etc. and give them the news or are all those news organisations part of this conspiracy as well?
d. Since when do reports cover every single piece of evidence? I presume this has something to do with point a., so why not read what people said about that. And what does 'deny(ing)' evidence mean?

@homeboy
"
1043 4:15pm Sat 6 Oct 2012 SHARE Quote Permalink Like Dislike Delete Ban
Squatting in East CoCo says

Why don't you take me off ignore so you can stop making an idiot of yourself? Then you won't have to use your sock puppet BuilderMike to find out what I'm saying."

Homeboy, I speak for myself. I work with engineers and architects. They don't go out on a limb easily. The video had a number of engineers and architects provide their opinions about the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

There are also Pilots for Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html.

I've met a number of 'tin foil hat' conspiracy nuts in my life. They exist. There are quite a few in the 9/11 Truth movement. That doesn't change the fact that real professionals have expressed real concerns over the faulty logic of the official story. I agree with them.

There are real grounds for a new investigation. That's all.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Must try harder.

Agreed

You agree with me that Zlxr's posts are ridiculous or....

Zlxr says

P.S. You say you like truth

Galileo was put in jail for thinking the world was round. But I guess that isn't in your scientific truth thinking is it?

Galileo was put in jail for challenging the churches attempt to control all education and knowledge in order to repress as many people as possible so the church could continue to be the richest most powerful organization on the planet. Science or truth had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The rest of the world knew the world was round. The western world pre catholic church knew the world was round. Greeks and Romans both calculated the circumference of the earth very accurately.

Comparing Galileo to 911 truthers is just pathetic.

Zlxr says

Hmmmmmm

Challenging those in authority who want to control education gets you put in jail.

Hmmmmmmm. You are so smart.

Is that supposed to mean something? And did you check your 'facts' about Galileo? There's this wonderful thing called Google you can use. Or try typing the word heliocentric.

Zlxr says

Hmmmmmm

Challenging those in authority who want to control education gets you put in jail.

Hmmmmmmm. You are so smart.

Hmmmmmmm. I didn't read the part where any truthers were put in jail. I'm sure you can post a video. There's a big difference between persecution and 99% of average people ignoring truthers because they consider truthers conspiracy nut jobs. I'm sure you don't grasp that, but it's ok at least give it a try.

Zlxr says

The biggest evidence is sitting right in front of our eyes,

Self cleaning ovens heat up to about 900 degrees F on the cleaning cycle and the stoves don't melt. Yet everything left inside that can burn is basically turned to ash.

So what kind of a fire would damage the steel in a steel building and leave all that paper around. It should have burned up way before the steel got hot enough to even bend.

Pretty compelling evidence that self cleaning oven thing.

No ovens don't melt because.
a. Ordinary structural steel doesn't begin to soften until 1000f which is above 900f. You must try to understand the difference between soften and melt. I know it's hard. Try some experiments at home with a candy bar.
b. Ordinary structural steel isn't what is used to line ovens. Try to stretch your imagination to encompass the idea that there is more than one kind of steel. Actually there are thousands of alloys of steel depending on the application.

All the paper? You inventoried it to make sure none is missing? Maybe the three buildings weren't fully engulfed in flames from top to bottom, side to side. Maybe, just maybe there were at least a same floors that weren't on fire, Maybe, must maybe this could be were paper came from. Nah, that couldn't happen, 911truth told me so.

Thinking is not a crime. Try it sometime.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Right below a persons user name is the ignore button.

Homeboy is one of the few people I have put on ignore.

If he had added something to the debate I would not have ignored him. Instead he was full of vulgar personal attacks and inane arguments.

Homeboy was a good speller.

You put me on ignore because I asked you a lot of questions that were rather inconvenient for you, since you couldn't answer them. To this date, you haven't answered ANY of the questions you have been asked.

If thermite cuts steel rather than shattering it, why did you claim there were "explosions"?

How did WTC7 burn all day without setting off any of the explosives or damaging any control mechanisms?

How did the conspirators plant half a million tons of explosives with devices to hold them in contact with the steel frames of the buildings, through walls and/or floors, in some of the most secure buildings in the world, without anyone noticing?

Why would the conspirators go to all that trouble to have controlled demolitions, when the objective was to make it look like terrorists knocked the buildings down?

Why would Larry Silverstein admit on camera that he was part of a secret government conspiracy, if his goal was to commit insurance fraud?

You have not answered ANY of these questions, nor any of the other questions you have been asked. You claim you want a debate, but you refuse to participate.

Unless you can answer these questions, your theory doesn't make any sense. But you'd rather put people on ignore than have to explain yourself. Just stick your fingers in your ears and chant, "It WAS a controlled demolition. It WAS a controlled demolition....."

I shudder to think that you are actually teaching a college-level class.

Zlxr says

P.S. You say you like truth

Galileo was put in jail for thinking the world was round. But I guess that isn't in your scientific truth thinking is it?

Don't sell yourself short, Zlxr. You are nothing less than Jesus himself. You are the greatest martyr in the history of the universe.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

There's a big difference between persecution and 99% of average people ignoring truthers because they consider truthers conspiracy nut jobs.

99%? Please post poll to support your numbers.

It's not 99%; it's more like 99.999997%. 17000 AE911TRUTH petition signers (rounded up) vs. world population of 6,973,738,433.

Squatting in East CoCo says

So are you saying that you have no evidence to post?

No, I'm saying you don't.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

Comparing Galileo to 911 truthers is just pathetic.

He was comparing people that don't want to look at the evidence to flat earthers.

Which of course has nothing to do with Galileo.

BuilderMike says

Homeboy, I speak for myself. I work with engineers and architects. They don't go out on a limb easily. The video had a number of engineers and architects provide their opinions about the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

How convenient that you joined patrick.net just in time to post in this thread to support Squatting as a so-called "expert", and your only 3 posts are in this thread. That is just an amazing stroke of luck, eh?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

My facts? I take it that the evidence of the overwhelming majority of respected specialists in the related fields are not of interest then.

Can you give us links to these "respected specialists" evidence against the CD of WTC7?

Why would they spend their time supplying evidence against an outlandish conspiracy theory? Their job is to explain what happened based on investigation, not to refute every nut job theory that pops up on the internet. What happened was researched and the conclusions run contrary to your theory, and is therefore... Oh, you work it out.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

So are you saying that you have no evidence to post?

No, I'm saying you don't.

OK. I guess we are done here. Thank you for your contribution.

I wish I could say the same to you, but unfortunately you've just run around in circles posting the same comments repeatedly and avoided addressing the problems raised. You are the one peddling the conspiracy. The onus is squarely on you to prove it, not for us to disprove it.

Squatting in East CoCo says

You say you have evidence and when we ask for it you say you have none.

How about eyewitness accounts, video evidence of airplanes being flown into the twin towers? How about airplane wreckage found in the debris? How about the identities of Al Queda members being on the planes that crashed?

Because there is no denying the fact that airplanes full of jet fuel crashed in to the towers. And that Al Queda was behind it. Once you accept that, then you are now saying the conspiracy involved the US working together with Bin Laden. Is that what you are saying? If so, please provide the evidence.

And before you write your standard 4 lines:

Thermite doesn't explode. So are you saying that thermit was used or that you heard explosions? Because those two statements are at odds with each other.

tatupu70 says

How about the identities of Al Queda members being on the planes that crashed?

that sure seems like it would be hard to find ... a piece of paper, or seven. Especially after a huge explosion, then either drifitin down and being blown about the area, landing several blocks away, or floaing down and then having all of the debris and dust cover it after the final fall. Or, sitting at the burning floors level for an hour, deposited there when the cockpit vaporized, and then riding the collapse to the ground, then having the upper floors collapse on top of the paper too, and then the whole mess piles into a big pit that burns for a month at a temp so high it keeps workmen back. That is a very lucky find, in my opinion.

Does anyone have odds on finding those ID's? Just wondering.

Bap33 says

Does anyone have odds on finding those ID's? Just wondering.

Believe it or not airlines keep passenger lists and they don't even store them on paper in 7wtc without any other copies like everyone else apparently did.

Zlxr says

And if perchance what I and many others believe is also incorrect - it's just spreading because no one is willing to let us find out the truth.

What's stopping you, ae911truth is raking in almost 500 big a year? That buys a lot of research or lots of nice toys for gage. I wonder which?

Homeboy says

BuilderMike says

Homeboy, I speak for myself. I work with engineers and architects. They don't go out on a limb easily. The video had a number of engineers and architects provide their opinions about the inconsistencies in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

How convenient that you joined patrick.net just in time to post in this thread to support Squatting as a so-called "expert", and your only 3 posts are in this thread. That is just an amazing stroke of luck, eh?

I wonder how many identities squatting actually has on patnet? I wonder how many people have read his posts and have at least looked at 911truth? I wonder what squatting's connection to 911truth is and if it pays? Follow the money. The only truth to 911truth is it's raking in a pile of money.

bob2356 says

Bap33 says

Does anyone have odds on finding those ID's? Just wondering.

Believe it or not airlines keep passenger lists and they don't even store them on paper in 7wtc without any other copies like everyone else apparently did.

my mistake, I thought tatupu was talking about IDs found in the rubble off of the badguys on the planes. Like, something they had with them at the time of the attack. If that is not what was meant, then my comment makes very little sense! lol

Bap33 says

my mistake, I thought tatupu was talking about IDs found in the rubble off of the badguys on the planes

No--just meant that the identities are well known and that constitutes evidence in my mind. They even have security camera footage of some of them in the airport.

There is OVERWHELMING evidence that Al Queda members hijacked planes, flew them into the towers, and the resulting explosion and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

The only thing that the conspiracy buffs have is that no other building has collapsed in the same way before.

That's not evidence. That's an observation.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

And what does 'deny(ing)' evidence mean?

Ignoring it? Doubting it?

Well, if it's the kind of 'evidence' you've been posting...

Squatting in East CoCo says

You say you have evidence and when we ask for it you say you have none.

I say no such thing. The evidence is there for everyone to see. Just bloody Google it. Just look at the videos you post up. What about that one with no audio and multiple shots of WTC7 coming down. How the hell is that evidence for what you claim? You are asking for evidence to disprove the claims that YOU are making, but what you are showing isn't evidence in the first place.
And what evidence am I supposed to produce to disprove your claims of a controlled demolition for example? The only people who see any evidence of a CD are conspiracy theorists, so how are people supposed to respond to that? You can't disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place to those that have chosen to believe - you just post up another video and say look at this one. We are looking and they aren't evidence. Just like religion, you make extraordinary claims. And just like religion, you fail to provide extraordinary evidence. And then just like with religious people, you demand that we prove that your 'evidence' is wrong. Like I said before, it is you making the claims and for you to prove those claims. You can't, so instead you flail around repeating the same points over and over again and then demand we disprove those points. When that is done, you just ignore what people have said and move on to the same point but with a different video. That is not evidence.

Squatting in East CoCo says

At this point the incredible conspiracy story is under the title of the NIST report and you cannot back it's conclusions with evidence.

What? The NIST report involved actual investigation. You cut and paste stuff from conspiracy websites and post up Youtube videos that either show nothing of what you claim or else torture the facts to breaking point. Explain to me why we should believe the latter over the former.

tatupu70 says

That's not evidence. That's an observation.

that is true. Does the WTC #7 building falling get your attention, or peak any interest at all? Just wonder what you think about that one.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"Furthermore, beyond falling for the straw man arguments that don't address real issues, the doubters are also fooled by the outright false official explanations, plus the plethora of false arguments put up by the 911 truth 'Debunking' (disinformation) fraternity, that do 'address' the real issues.

In this instance the key 911 truth 'Debunker' rebuttals rely upon many unsubstantiated explanations and false analogies. They pretend to adequately cover the highly relevant issues at hand, like freefall collapse rates and molten steel, but don't. Unfortunately the honest 911 truth doubters fall for these deceptions rather than thinking twice about what is being put to them - even after it is has been pointed out by the 911 truthers."

Do you actually have anything of your own to say? Any personal observations? All you ever seem to do is post up other people's remarks or videos. For someone who claims to be a professor, you are remarkably adverse to any personal input on this matter. Why is that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Argue with my ideas not my identity.

They aren't your ideas. You just post up others.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I have sifted through the information and post what I find relevant to the discussion. A video is worth a thousand worlds and there are many people that have expressed MY thoughts more eloquently than me.

Your videos aren't worth a thousand words. You aren't applying any critical analysis to what you post up and I'm afraid the eloquence of those you do quote must have passed me by. If you think your (others) arguments occupy the middle ground on this matter, then you are clearly mistaken. And how many times have you posted that video now? It doesn't get any more convincing the more times you post it up.

And your qualifications don't sound like those of a professor. A school teacher perhaps.

Squatting in East CoCo says

According to the NIST report, the official story on WTC 7 collapse, over 400 structural steel connections failed PER SECOND!!

Please cite your source.

"Caused by the collapse of the towers"? I thought you said it was impossible for a building to fall unless it's CD'd. Oh, guess you were wrong, AGAIN.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Probably because I have a technical education. I have most of an associates degree in electronics, 3/4 of my bachelors in math, a bachelors in computer science, and a masters in education.

and I'm tinkerbell.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I also worked on nuclear subs and learned a lot about metal.

Perfect, a submariner. My father was career navy in the silent service so I know a lot, actually a hell of a lot, about this subject. What boats did you serve on?

Squatting in East CoCo says

I also worked on nuclear subs and learned a lot about metal.

Apparently you didn't learn that molten aluminum glows.

tatupu70 says

There is OVERWHELMING evidence that Al Queda members hijacked planes, flew them into the towers, and the resulting explosion and fire caused the buildings to collapse.

does a planted intact passport constitute overwhelming evidence?

The only thing that the conspiracy buffs have is that no other building has collapsed in the same way before.

then there's that little inconvient wtc7 building collapse that needs some 'splainin.

coriacci1 says

does a planted intact passport constitute overwhelming evidence?

Nope. If that were the sum total of the evidence, then you might have a point.

coriacci1 says

then there's that little inconvient wtc7 building collapse that needs some 'splainin.

Again--the fact that an event happens in a way that is unusual is NOT evidence of anything. Especially because there is really no other similar event that can be used as comparison.